HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811.jpg

2.24 MB

Extraction Summary

4
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Book manuscript / memoir excerpt (evidence produced to house oversight committee)
File Size: 2.24 MB
Summary

This document is a page from a manuscript or memoir, likely by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, produced as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. It describes a meeting between Barak and President Bill Clinton roughly six months before the 2000 US election, where Barak attempts to persuade Clinton to hold a high-stakes peace summit (Camp David) with Yasir Arafat. The text details the political risks involved for both leaders and Barak's rationale that a summit was the only way to determine if peace was possible before Clinton left office.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Ehud Barak Narrator / Prime Minister of Israel
The author of the text (indicated by header '/ BARAK /'), discussing his strategy with Clinton regarding Arafat.
Bill Clinton President of the United States
Meeting with the narrator; being persuaded to hold a summit.
Yasir Arafat Palestinian Leader
The target of the proposed summit; described as needing to be forced to negotiate on core issues.
Bibi (Benjamin Netanyahu) Former Prime Minister of Israel
Mentioned as having 'slowed down' the Oslo process.

Organizations (1)

Name Type Context
House Oversight Committee
Implied recipient of the document based on the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811'.

Timeline (2 events)

Circa 2000
Planning meeting for the Camp David Summit
Unknown (Likely Washington D.C.)
November 2000 (Projected)
American Election
USA
Bill Clinton's successor

Locations (3)

Location Context
Country of the narrator; place where political reaction would occur.
Land potentially being handed back to Arafat.
Listed as a 'core issue' for negotiation.

Relationships (2)

Ehud Barak Political Alliance Bill Clinton
Barak met with Clinton to strategize on peace talks and relied on Clinton's 'grasp of the all issues'.
Ehud Barak Adversarial Negotiation Yasir Arafat
Barak sought to force Arafat to negotiate on core issues.

Key Quotes (4)

"My aim was to persuade him that the time had come for a make-or-break summit with Yasir Arafat."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811.jpg
Quote #1
"We were three years behind the timeline for starting work on a 'permanent status' agreement, and only six months from an American election that would choose President Clinton’s successor."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811.jpg
Quote #2
"I realized there was no guarantee it would succeed. But it would finally force Arafat to negotiate on the core issues"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811.jpg
Quote #3
"If it failed? At least we would know a peace agreement with Arafat was impossible."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,518 characters)

/ BARAK / 54
Chapter Twenty-One
President Clinton and I met the next morning. My aim was to persuade him that
the time had come for a make-or-break summit with Yasir Arafat.
I suspected it would not be easy to convince him, and it wasn’t. But I made the
argument that if we were to have any hope of moving Oslo forward, we now faced
a stark choice. We were three years behind the timeline for starting work on a
“permanent status” agreement, and only six months from an American election that
would choose President Clinton’s successor. We could, of course, pursue the Oslo
process along its current, meandering path. But even though Bibi had slowed it
down, that would inevitably mean Israel handing back yet more West Bank land to
Arafat – in return for familiar, but still unfulfilled and untested, verbal assurances
that he wanted peace. Each successive Israeli withdrawal reduced his incentive to
engage of the core issues like final borders, refugees, or Jerusalem. I could not in
good conscience justify that, either to myself or my country. The second option
was the summit. I realized there was no guarantee it would succeed. But it would
finally force Arafat to negotiate on the core issues – before the departure of an
American President who had a grasp of the all issues and characters involved, and
a personal commitment to converting the promise of Oslo into a genuine peace.
The obvious political risk, for both Clinton and me, was that after convening a
summit – with all the heightened expectations and pressures it would bring – we’d
fail to get an agreement. Though I’d be more directly affected, however, it was a
more straightforward choice for me. In part because I’d been in front-line politics
so briefly, but mostly because of what I’d done for the three-and-a-half decades
before then, I viewed the political risk as just one of many, and by no means the
most important. That was an obvious weakness in me as a traditional politician. I
would indeed pay a political price later on for having given too little heed, and
perhaps underestimated, the reaction in Israel to the summit and what came after it.
Yet as I tried to impress on President Clinton, there were risks in not holding a
summit as well, along with the obvious reward of a full and final peace if it
succeeded. If it failed? At least we would know a peace agreement with Arafat was
impossible. In fact, amid the diplomatic drift since Oslo, it was clear there was no
other way that we could know.
340
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011811

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document